Archive for the ‘Democracy’ Category

When democracy is attacked, one of the first things done is to suppress newspapers – Southgate News Herald

Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

These wise words were spoken by Thomas Jefferson. He knew that preserving democracy required a strong and free press. Something the current occupant of the White House should realize. Although the press and the president have a natural adversarial role, Donald Trump has taken press bashing to dangerous levels.

In vitriolic attacks not seen since the days of Richard Nixon, Trump has routinely vilified the press.

Constantly denigrated as false and crooked, the news agencies have only done their jobs; maybe too well. At an off-camera press briefing at the White House, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CNN and others were forcibly blocked and forbidden to be there and only a select group was admitted. Trump claimed CNN and others kept reporting stories critical of him; the so-called fake news. He should know being in the White House means being criticized.

Another president, Harry Truman, once said, If you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Speaking of Nixon, he despised the press, also. But were it not for the Washington Post, Watergate might have remained the third rate burglary he claimed it was. Were it not for the New York Times, we might never have known about the Pentagon Papers and our involvement in Vietnam.

Are we seeing a Nixon 2.0 with Trump? There are his bitter attacks on the media. Theres Kellyanne Conways bizarre assertion that there are alternative facts that reminds one of Nixons Press Secretary Ron Ziegler and his infamous comment of: This statement is operative. The others are inoperative.

Trump has already done the Saturday Night Massacre in which he fired the Acting Attorney General Susan Yates for not supporting his executive order on a Muslim ban which courts later blocked.

Were Jefferson alive today, he would be appalled at the animosity for the 4th Estate. He would lecture Trump on the importance of one of the bedrocks of our democracy. He would give him a sharp rebuke for saying the press was the enemy of the people.

Jefferson also said: Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions.

History shows when democracy is attacked, one of the first things done is to suppress newspapers.

This is why the press needs to be a powerful check against the government, especially now.

When Trump claims he cant be challenged or his rulings cant be questioned, this arrogance must be reined in.

A Trump spokesperson, Stephen Miller, made an incredulous statement. Miller claimed Trump had absolute power when it came to issues like immigration. Show me anywhere in the Constitution where anyone has absolute power over anything. When claims are made that power cannot be questioned or challenged, it is time to do both loudly and repeatedly.

Jefferson observed: The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed ....

That force was certainly seen nationally with the Womens March on Washington. It also was seen locally with many town hall meetings being packed with people expressing their opinions. Those who would deny or denounce these events do so at their own peril.

Detroit Judge Damon Keith of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit once said, democracies die behind closed doors. A free press will always make sure those doors are open to all.

Southgate resident Allan Bieniek has appeared in several publications, including The New York Times and the Harvard International Review.

Original post:
When democracy is attacked, one of the first things done is to suppress newspapers - Southgate News Herald

The Internet’s Boon to Democracy – New York Times

The Internet's Boon to Democracy
New York Times
Democracy, Disrupted, by Thomas Edsall (column, nytimes.com, March 2), understates the immense benefits the internet has brought to democracy, while overstating its contribution to the traditional moral and ethical constraints in American politics..

Follow this link:
The Internet's Boon to Democracy - New York Times

Grunge And Government: Nirvana’s Krist Novoselic Wants To Save US Democracy – Forbes


Forbes
Grunge And Government: Nirvana's Krist Novoselic Wants To Save US Democracy
Forbes
Nirvana was touring in Germany when the Berlin Wall felland Krist Novoselic, the supergroup's bassist, vividly remembers the line of Trabant cars 27 kilometers long that queued up to enter the west. Shortly thereafter, he saw scores of them parked ...

and more »

Originally posted here:
Grunge And Government: Nirvana's Krist Novoselic Wants To Save US Democracy - Forbes

Dear Democracy Now! visitor, – Democracy Now!

You turn to Democracy Now! for ad-free news you can trust. Maybe you come for our daily headlines. Maybe you come for in-depth stories that expose government and corporate abuses of power. Democracy Now! covers emerging threats to immigrant rights, civil rights, healthcare, the environment, press freedom and education. Democracy Now! is always freeyou'll never hit a paywall. And we produce our daily news hour at a fraction of the budget of a commercial news operation, all without ads, government funding or corporate underwriting. How is this possible? Only with your support. If you and every visitor to our website this month gave just $6, it would cover our basic operating costs for the year. Right now, a generous donor will double your donation to Democracy Now! Pretty exciting, right? So, if you've been waiting to make your contribution to Democracy Now!, today is your day.Please do your part. It takes just a few minutes to make sure that Democracy Now! is there for you and everybody else.

We rely on contributions from you, our viewers and listeners to do our work. If you visit us daily or weekly or even just once a month, now is a great time to make your monthly contribution.

Please do your part today.

Read the original here:
Dear Democracy Now! visitor, - Democracy Now!

How SCOTUS Campaign Finance Rulings ‘Distorted’ US Democracy – BillMoyers.com

Campaign finance rulings contributed $1.3 billion, nearly half of the spending in the 2016 presidential election

How SCOTUS Campaign Finance Rulings [...]

The Supreme Court of the United States. (Photo by Matt Wade/ flickr CC 2.0)

This post originally appeared at Common Dreams.

With the pending confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch shaping up to be a referendum on the role of money in politics, a new study published on Tuesday highlights the actual impact of campaign finance rulings on the 2016 election.

Published by public policy organization Demos, Court Cash: 2016 Election Money Resulting Directly from Supreme Court Rulings quantifies for the first time the direct impact of the Supreme Courts four most significant money-in-politics cases, using the highly competitive presidential race as well as the 22 congressional races won by 5 percentage points or fewer as the studys focal point.

According to the report, the Supreme Courts rulings led to more than $1.3 billion in spending on the 2016 presidential election, which is equivalent to 49 percent of the total cost.

According to the report, the Supreme Courts rulings inBuckley v. Valeo,Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (1996) and Citizens United v. FEC(2010) led to more than $1.3 billion in spending on the 2016 presidential election, which is equivalent to 49 percent of the total cost.

The same rulings led to 77 percent, or $649 million, of spending in competitive congressional races.

In addition, the study notes, 2014sMcCutcheon v. FECallowed 1724 wealthy donors to contribute $274 million in McCutcheonMoney in 2016 money that went beyond what would have been permitted by the previous aggregate contribution limit. The average contribution from these elite donors was more than five times the median annual household income in the US.

Lead author Adam Lioz, counsel with Demos Policy and Outreach, wroteTuesday that the study demonstrates the profound impact offour decades of flawed Supreme Court rulingson the role of money in American politics.

Bystriking basic protectionsagainst big money dominating our elections, he continued, the Supreme Court has shifted the balance of powertoward the wealthy and special interests and away from ordinary Americans.

The study is especially timely as it comes just days before the US Senate begins confirmation hearings for President Donald Trumps Supreme Court nominee. Opponents areraising alarmover Gorsuchs troubling money-in-politics record, as more than 120 groups warned in a letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

Writing forSalonon Tuesday, Lioz and report co-authors Sean McElwee and Juhem Navarro-Riveraexplainedhow, taken together, these decisions quite literally transformed the American political system.

They wrote:

In theBuckleycase, the Supreme Court addressed Congress post-Watergate reforms, dramatically changing the legal landscape surrounding money in politics. The court upheld contribution limits (money given to candidates), disclosure requirements and a system providing public funding for presidential candidates, but struck down several key protections against big money: limits on self-funding, spending by candidates and independent expenditures on behalf of candidates.

Twenty years later, the court built upon that decision inColorado Republican I, which eliminated limits on party expenditures for or against candidates. Most infamously, in 2010sCitizens United, the court allowed corporations to spend directly on elections. Another result of that case (through a DC Circuit Court opinion that closely followed its logic) was the rise of Super PACs political action committees that do not make direct contributions to candidates or parties but can accept unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals, and spend unlimited money flooding our airwaves with ads favoring or opposing candidates. More recently, inMcCutcheon, the court struck down the aggregate limits on how much wealthy individuals could give to all federal candidates, parties and PACs combined.

Highlighting previous Demos research, the authors further note that large donors are disproportionately wealthy, white, male and conservative, and are generally more supportive of domestic spending cuts, more likely to oppose taking action to mitigate climate change and less supportive of the Affordable Care Act.

Thus, they observe that [t]he Supreme Courts decisions have empowered wealthy, white conservative men, distorting democracy.

Daily Reads: Trumps Taxes Show His Tax Plan Benefits Him the Most; Edward Snowdens Advice for Donald Trump

If We Dont Act Now, Fascism Will Be on Our Doorstep, Says Yale Historian

See the article here:
How SCOTUS Campaign Finance Rulings 'Distorted' US Democracy - BillMoyers.com